Re: problem with expired prefix (dhcpv6)
Harald Dunkel
Sat Apr 22 05:05:22 2017
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 04/21/17 20:47, Roy Marples wrote:
> On 21/04/2017 19:24, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>> IMHO DT violates rfc 3633: "During renumbering it is expected that the old and the new prefix co-exist for some time." Maybe the rfc is too vague here.
>
> The RFC is fine, and strictly speaking so is DT because it does co-exist, it's just not managed by DHCPv6 any longer.
>
I had assumed this "co-exist" implies a working route for the old
prefix.
Regards
Harri
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEH2V614LbR/u1O+a1Cp4qnmbTgcsFAlj65JoACgkQCp4qnmbT
gcvbuAgAkTW79amIa4FhRbV6MQnSuQKzQu/o0U30qIZZ/n2ynwW2GU/BKBGRdjV3
60Em6jmO/q5aVM5wIlmtft1hRXjmpUEgA8Gin9EigdmwAtl3EhwURHgBzl6i8bce
FyyDOP3h2q+4QsqpN+QuGVN1f3/e0XVwdPioMpfrBB4KIMlW1+Rtj8SaINti33Kv
D2q4lhgUqRgI159/dKTjbkAbXF0k2tJ0n1TUzKsMqoa084xjsuN9NiIAf4yZSrqi
zY1XEvTqu96G8vBhnBy7+f2GgUTUzyulJeKDwAld5WLBQuIBM8LnVt1Uhw/mKunM
2XCFZjRgTLufXUlmiMeAExu9Vz8CoA==
=dYuP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Archive administrator: postmaster@marples.name